Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #3564 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-06-26 15:13 -0500 |
| Last post | 2011-07-02 17:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 306 — 43 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-06-26 15:13 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 16:13 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-27 15:50 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 16:55 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-27 17:23 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 20:09 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 18:59 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 12:49 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 16:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-03 11:27 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-03 17:40 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 18:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 12:25 -0700
Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 09:43 -0400
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 12:35 -0400
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 10:02 -0700
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-07-14 08:32 -0400
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-14 07:10 -0700
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-14 09:31 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse arc@vorsicht-bissig.de - 2011-07-12 22:20 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 10:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-28 03:02 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-06-27 21:29 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-28 06:55 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-06-28 06:17 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 14:14 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 16:08 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:01 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-01 13:41 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 21:18 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 02:26 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 16:56 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-02 08:28 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 17:00 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-03 10:20 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 20:57 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-06 15:45 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 16:19 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-07-07 01:23 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2011-07-06 21:44 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 19:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-07-07 10:39 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 13:07 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2011-07-06 21:42 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 10:32 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse marko <marko@marko.marko.marko> - 2011-07-07 22:09 +1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-07 09:19 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 14:08 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 10:33 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-08 05:31 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 17:47 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-07-08 17:23 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-07-08 15:34 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 21:04 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 10:34 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 21:28 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-09 15:25 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-10 10:14 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 22:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 03:18 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 12:42 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-12 19:42 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-12 14:42 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-11 07:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 07:24 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-11 20:40 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 21:24 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-12 18:54 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 20:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-13 00:28 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 10:25 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-11 19:55 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 13:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <forthfreak@forthfiles.net> - 2011-07-11 13:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-07-12 21:51 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-09 16:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 04:27 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 14:53 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-28 11:57 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-29 21:54 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-07-30 18:22 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-01 12:59 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-08-02 00:07 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-01 22:58 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-08 20:44 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-31 10:25 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-08 16:00 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-10 07:08 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-10 18:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-11 03:05 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 07:37 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-11 10:07 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 08:32 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-11 08:37 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 18:25 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-12 01:37 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-12 07:15 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-12 08:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-11 08:13 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 18:50 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-12 01:39 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-11 10:06 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 08:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-12 11:49 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-12 13:18 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-12 18:49 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 12:52 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-14 09:54 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 12:53 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-14 13:21 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 15:09 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-15 04:52 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-15 03:46 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-08-15 12:15 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-15 20:51 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-08-15 21:56 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-15 19:50 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-16 03:07 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-18 23:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-18 11:38 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-18 07:57 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-15 06:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-16 05:10 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-16 03:13 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-18 23:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-19 06:09 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-20 17:14 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-20 20:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-20 20:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-20 23:39 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-21 00:29 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 00:57 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 01:04 -0700
Hamming numbers (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-22 16:12 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201108.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-08-21 13:21 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 10:40 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-21 13:56 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 12:33 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 12:42 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 13:30 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 12:49 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-21 13:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 11:48 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-22 10:36 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 22:57 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-22 23:28 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-23 04:16 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-22 16:54 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-21 13:49 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse George Hubert <georgeahubert@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-22 01:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-22 17:02 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-22 07:50 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-23 01:03 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-22 22:38 -1000
Hamming numbers (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-22 15:10 +0000
Re: Hamming numbers Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-23 00:09 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-19 17:41 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-19 18:05 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-19 13:53 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2011-08-19 13:15 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-19 15:39 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-19 19:49 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-19 17:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-20 03:54 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-08-20 15:20 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-21 14:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 11:47 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-08-22 20:30 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-22 15:22 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 23:34 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-22 22:48 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-08-20 08:55 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-12 10:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-13 14:03 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-14 07:57 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-12 09:51 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-13 13:45 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-13 08:08 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-14 02:56 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-13 04:35 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-12 07:53 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-13 14:13 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-13 13:59 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-14 14:46 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-17 01:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-06-28 03:24 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201106.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-06-28 19:55 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 06:30 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-29 13:49 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-29 14:02 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 18:16 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-06-29 15:45 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 19:45 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-06-29 22:08 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-30 10:07 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-06-30 20:44 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-30 18:08 -0400
Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 20:07 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 22:12 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:01 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 17:59 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 16:33 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-02 18:37 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-01 06:07 -0500
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:00 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-01 14:06 +0000
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 14:57 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-02 16:55 +0000
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:04 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-02 11:26 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-07-02 22:10 +0200
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-02 14:36 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-02 21:36 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-02 18:25 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-03 10:53 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 23:41 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 01:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-02 22:46 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-07-18 01:25 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 14:44 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 23:24 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-03 12:04 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-03 20:24 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 02:21 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-04 16:02 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Tarkin <tarkin000@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 10:21 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 11:13 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Tarkin <tarkin000@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 12:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 15:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-04 13:23 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 01:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-05 11:34 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 05:34 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-05 14:28 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 09:39 -0700
OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-07 15:36 +0000
Re: OT: full virtualization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-07 13:17 -0500
Re: OT: full virtualization Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-08 04:53 -0700
Re: OT: full virtualization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-08 17:11 +0000
Re: OT: full virtualization Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-08 12:41 -0700
Re: OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-08 04:34 -0700
Re: OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-10 16:03 +0000
Re: OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-10 13:06 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-07 00:11 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-06 12:47 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-07 10:07 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Tarkin <tarkin000@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 13:00 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-04 12:40 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 11:15 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-04 15:53 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-05 10:16 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 02:23 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-05 09:54 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-05 22:33 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-05 16:28 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 16:18 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-04 15:03 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-05 00:20 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-05 11:35 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 09:46 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-05 23:13 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 15:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-07 04:38 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-05 19:21 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-05 14:57 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 20:48 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-07-06 07:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-06 09:46 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-07 04:38 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-07 10:41 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-07-07 09:12 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-06 09:53 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-06 21:45 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-07 14:48 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 20:20 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-07-08 04:39 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 23:22 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-12 19:35 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 23:37 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-12 05:10 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-12 03:44 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-13 22:06 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-14 04:01 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-07 04:38 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-03 07:34 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-29 13:25 -0400
Forth as implementation language vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-29 18:27 +0000
Re: Forth as implementation language Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-29 17:50 -0400
Re: Forth as implementation language vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-29 22:45 +0000
Re: Forth as implementation language Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 13:04 +0100
Re: Forth as implementation language Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-30 11:42 -0400
Re: Forth as implementation language "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-30 13:12 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-06-29 08:38 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-29 18:01 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-06-29 12:50 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-06-30 08:15 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-07-03 15:22 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 13:09 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 18:31 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-29 23:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-01 09:42 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-01 18:49 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2011-06-29 15:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Fuschia, President-Elect of the Bright Purplish-Green Council" <fp-eotbp-gc@ibm.com> - 2011-06-29 19:16 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <forthfreak@forthfiles.net> - 2011-06-30 00:34 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-02 17:52 +0000
Page 5 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 16 Next page →
| From | Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-30 18:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <86ipqj4am5.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #4494 |
Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> writes:
> Well, that proves it! FFL is better than my novice package! lol
> I've examined FFL, and I know that it isn't any good --- and no
> application based on FFL is going to be any good either. Have you even
> looked at FFL? Is this steaming heap of ugly Forth code really
> something that you want to associate yourself with?
: jis-parse-value ( jis -- i*x n = Parse a value )
>r
r@ jis-skip-spaces
s" true" r@ tis-cmatch-string IF \ Check for true value
true jis.boolean
ELSE
s" false" r@ tis-cmatch-string IF \ Check for false value
false jis.boolean
ELSE
s" null" r@ tis-cmatch-string IF \ Check for null value
jis.null
ELSE
[char] " r@ tis-cmatch-char IF \ Check for string value
r@ jis-parse-string IF
jis.string
ELSE
jis.error
THEN
ELSE
[char] { r@ tis-cmatch-char IF \ } Check for start of object
jis.parse-first-pair r@ jis-push-state
jis.start-object
ELSE
[char] [ r@ tis-cmatch-char IF \ ] Check for start of array
jis.parse-first-value r@ jis-push-state
jis.start-array
ELSE
r@ jis-parse-number \ Check for float, double or number
THEN
THEN
THEN
THEN
THEN
THEN
rdrop
;
Yeah, that's gross. FFL uses naming conventions instead of wordlists or
smudging to manage its interface, and along with this decision has
apparently come a reluctance to add lots of names. However,
1. It (probably) works.
2. It's well-documented.
3. It exists; it's available; it's pretty clear.
4. It's in an SVN repository. If you really can't take JIS-PARSE-VALUE
anymore, why not fix it, send the patch upstream, and continue to not
roll your own JSON library?
The only stunner is that it's all GPL'd. Not even LGPL'd. Not MIT or
BSD. Not 'Artistic'; not GPL with an escape clause. It's pure 100%
infectious GPL. But for that I'd have no problem using FFL.
I wouldn't use your novice package though, because that's a "steaming
heap of ugly Forth code" without any of FFL's excuses for its ugliness.
FFL achieves ugliness in creating something that's actually useful, and
often (as in this case) somewhat inherently ugly anyway. While I wonder
at the three-letter-names and the privacy-by-convention and the words
that could certainly be broken up, none of this is in the same category
as your "every single parsing word needs a non-parsing factor _just in
case_", or the totally pointless words that you included in obvious fits
of useless thoroughness
macro: roll-third ( a b c -- a b c a ) \ same as ROT
2 roll ;
macro: roll-fourth ( a b c d -- a b c d a )
3 roll ;
macro: roll-fifth ( a b c d e -- a b c d e a )
4 roll ;
macro: roll-sixth ( a b c d e f -- a b c d e f a )
5 roll ;
(Note that all of the stack comments are incorrect.)
Or the utterly bizarre parameters that you just fight constantly
: :name ( str wid -- )
... ;
$ egrep "get-current :2?name" *.4th|wc -l
53
$ egrep ":2?name" *.4th|egrep -v get-current
novice.4th:: :name ( str wid -- )
novice.4th:: :2name ( prefix-str suffix-str wid -- )
novice.4th: :name ;
novice.4th: :name ; \ :3name
novice.4th:: :name! ( str wid -- )
novice.4th: c" !" swap :2name ;
novice.4th:: :name@ ( str wid -- )
novice.4th: c" @" swap :2name ;
$ # output edited for usenet and clarity; no lines omitted
Or this:
: <open-file> ( adr cnt fam -- file-id )
open-file abort" *** <OPEN-FILE> failed to open ***" ;
: <create-file> ( adr cnt fam -- file-id )
create-file abort" *** <CREATE-FILE> failed to open ***" ;
: <close-file> ( file-id -- )
close-file abort" *** <CLOSE-FILE> failed to close ***" ;
Or this:
char & comment \ Win32Forth doesn't allow more than 12 locals
: <5array> { dim1 dim2 dim3 dim4 dim5 siz1 name | adr siz siz2 siz3 siz4 siz5 -- }
dim1 siz1 * to siz2 dim2 siz2 * to siz3 dim3 siz3 * to siz4
dim4 siz4 * to siz5 dim5 siz5 * to siz
align here to adr siz allot
name get-current :name \ runtime: x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 -- element-adr
dim5 <check5>
siz5 lit*, swap, \ runtime: -- x1 x2 x3 x5*s5 x4
dim4 <check4>
siz4 lit*, +, swap, \ runtime: -- x1 x2 x5*s5+x4*s4 x3
dim3 <check3>
siz3 lit*, +, swap, \ runtime: -- x1 x5*s5+x4*s4+x3*s3 x2
dim2 <check2>
siz2 lit*, +, swap, \ runtime: -- x5*s5+x4*s4+x3*s3+x2*s2 x1
dim1 <check1>
siz1 lit*, +, adr lit+, ;, \ runtime: -- x5*s5+x4*s4+x3*s3+x2*s2+x1*s1
c" ^" name get-current :2name \ runtime: -- adr
adr lit, ;,
c" lim-" name get-current :2name \ runtime: -- adr-past
adr siz + lit, ;,
name c" -zero" get-current :2name \ runtime: --
adr lit, siz lit, s" erase ; " evaluate
name c" -size" get-current :2name \ runtime: -- siz1
siz1 lit, ;,
name c" -dim" get-current :2name \ runtime: -- dim1 dim2 dim3 dim4 dim5
dim1 lit, dim2 lit, dim3 lit, dim4 lit, dim5 lit, ;,
;
...
: 1array ( dim1 size -- ) bl word hstr dup >r <1array> r> dealloc ;
: 2array ( dim1 dim2 size -- ) bl word hstr dup >r <2array> r> dealloc ;
: 3array ( dim1 dim2 dim3 size -- ) bl word hstr dup >r <3array> r> dealloc ;
: 4array ( dim1 dim2 dim3 dim4 size -- ) bl word hstr dup >r <4array> r> dealloc ;
char & comment
: 5array ( dim1 dim2 dim3 dim4 dim5 size -- ) bl word hstr dup >r <5array> r> dealloc ;
: 6array ( dim1 dim2 dim3 dim4 dim5 dim6 size -- ) bl word hstr dup >r <6array> r> dealloc ;
&
> What I'm saying is:
> get a life --- find something to do with your time other than trying
> to convince me that my novice package sucks
Your own opening remarks betray that you're actually perfectly OK with
very nasty comments about earnestly provided libraries of code.
I know it's largely unrelated, but maybe reading this will help:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-01 12:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2011Aug1.145928@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #4506 |
Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> writes:
>While I wonder
>at the three-letter-names and the privacy-by-convention and the words
>that could certainly be broken up, none of this is in the same category
>as your "every single parsing word needs a non-parsing factor _just in
>case_"
That's a convention I often use, too, and it's there to circumvent
Forth's weakness that you can easily write a parsing word based on a
non-parsing word, but not the other way round. However, this
convention can become pretty burdensome at times, so the question is
if we can do without it.
EXECUTE-PARSING allows to create a word that takes a string on the
stack from a parsing word. Is it good enough? In many cases it is,
but it does have limitations: A parsing word takes only one string
from the input stream; if we have to pass two strings, we would have
to assemble them into one string (and embed some separator in that
string), only to have it picked apart by the parsing word.
Still, I guess it is good enough to do away with the burden of having
to define lots of words in two ways.
I also hope that it is not so attractive that people start defining
even more parsing words instead of words with stack-based parameter
passing.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-02 00:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <86tya05rm3.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #4506 |
Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> writes: > The only stunner is that it's all GPL'd. Not even LGPL'd. Not MIT or > BSD. Not 'Artistic'; not GPL with an escape clause. It's pure 100% > infectious GPL. But for that I'd have no problem using FFL. I contacted the author about the license, and received this reply: Hello, Actually, more people have suggested the move to the LGPL, so with the next version of library the license will be changed to LGPL. Regards, Dick So, that's that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-01 22:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d06c853e-bfd3-4438-b1ae-fc8e7af3d1a5@q29g2000prj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4506 |
On Jul 30, 5:22 pm, Julian Fondren <ayrn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Well, that proves it! FFL is better than my novice package! lol
> > I've examined FFL, and I know that it isn't any good --- and no
> > application based on FFL is going to be any good either. Have you even
> > looked at FFL? Is this steaming heap of ugly Forth code really
> > something that you want to associate yourself with?
> ...
> > What I'm saying is:
> > get a life --- find something to do with your time other than trying
> > to convince me that my novice package sucks
>
> Your own opening remarks betray that you're actually perfectly OK with
> very nasty comments about earnestly provided libraries of code.
I apologize for using the term "steaming heap of ugly Forth code" ---
that puts me in the same category as the trolls who call my novice
package "crap."
I just get really annoyed with all of this comp.lang.forth crap (oops!
I did it again!). I think that people are promoting FFL solely because
they want to put down my novice package --- they have never used FFL
and know nothing about it --- they just know that FFL is not written
by me, so they promote it.
> I wouldn't use your novice package though, because that's a "steaming
> heap of ugly Forth code" without any of FFL's excuses for its ugliness.
> FFL achieves ugliness in creating something that's actually useful, and
> often (as in this case) somewhat inherently ugly anyway.
My novice package is "actually useful" --- I wrote application
software based on it.
It wouldn't have been possible to write the slide-rule program using
the FFL linked-list package because it just lacks the needed features.
If I have to upgrade an FFL package to make it useful, then I might as
well write my own from scratch.
Similarly, the FFL AVL package doesn't provide any facility for in-
order traversal of sub-sections. Duh! That is the whole point of using
a tree rather than a hash table. My impression of FFL is that it was
written as an academic exercise (implement an AVL tree, etc.), but
that nobody ever had any intention of it being used for application
programming.
> macro: roll-third ( a b c -- a b c a ) \ same as ROT
> 2 roll ;
>
> macro: roll-fourth ( a b c d -- a b c d a )
> 3 roll ;
>
> macro: roll-fifth ( a b c d e -- a b c d e a )
> 4 roll ;
>
> macro: roll-sixth ( a b c d e f -- a b c d e f a )
> 5 roll ;
>
> (Note that all of the stack comments are incorrect.)
That is more readable in my opinion.
You are right that the stack comments are incorrect; I'll fix that.
> Or the utterly bizarre parameters that you just fight constantly
>
> : :name ( str wid -- )
> ... ;
>
> $ egrep "get-current :2?name" *.4th|wc -l
> 53
>
> $ egrep ":2?name" *.4th|egrep -v get-current
> novice.4th:: :name ( str wid -- )
> novice.4th:: :2name ( prefix-str suffix-str wid -- )
> novice.4th: :name ;
> novice.4th: :name ; \ :3name
> novice.4th:: :name! ( str wid -- )
> novice.4th: c" !" swap :2name ;
> novice.4th:: :name@ ( str wid -- )
> novice.4th: c" @" swap :2name ;
> $ # output edited for usenet and clarity; no lines omitted
"Fight constantly?" I don't know what you mean.
I agree in retrospect that :NAME would be more robust if it took an
adr/cnt pair rather than a counted string, but I don't think it is a
big deal --- <CSTR builds counted strings, and this is where the
string usually comes from.
> Or this:
>
> : <open-file> ( adr cnt fam -- file-id )
> open-file abort" *** <OPEN-FILE> failed to open ***" ;
>
> : <create-file> ( adr cnt fam -- file-id )
> create-file abort" *** <CREATE-FILE> failed to open ***" ;
>
> : <close-file> ( file-id -- )
> close-file abort" *** <CLOSE-FILE> failed to close ***" ;
What is wrong with that? Why should every use of these words have to
check the error flag and produce an error message --- it is going to
be the same error message every time anyway.
> Or this:
>
> char & comment \ Win32Forth doesn't allow more than 12 locals
> : <5array> { dim1 dim2 dim3 dim4 dim5 siz1 name | adr siz siz2 siz3 siz4 siz5 -- }
> dim1 siz1 * to siz2 dim2 siz2 * to siz3 dim3 siz3 * to siz4
> dim4 siz4 * to siz5 dim5 siz5 * to siz
> align here to adr siz allot
> name get-current :name \ runtime: x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 -- element-adr
> dim5 <check5>
> siz5 lit*, swap, \ runtime: -- x1 x2 x3 x5*s5 x4
> dim4 <check4>
> siz4 lit*, +, swap, \ runtime: -- x1 x2 x5*s5+x4*s4 x3
> dim3 <check3>
> siz3 lit*, +, swap, \ runtime: -- x1 x5*s5+x4*s4+x3*s3 x2
> dim2 <check2>
> siz2 lit*, +, swap, \ runtime: -- x5*s5+x4*s4+x3*s3+x2*s2 x1
> dim1 <check1>
> siz1 lit*, +, adr lit+, ;, \ runtime: -- x5*s5+x4*s4+x3*s3+x2*s2+x1*s1
> c" ^" name get-current :2name \ runtime: -- adr
> adr lit, ;,
> c" lim-" name get-current :2name \ runtime: -- adr-past
> adr siz + lit, ;,
> name c" -zero" get-current :2name \ runtime: --
> adr lit, siz lit, s" erase ; " evaluate
> name c" -size" get-current :2name \ runtime: -- siz1
> siz1 lit, ;,
> name c" -dim" get-current :2name \ runtime: -- dim1 dim2 dim3 dim4 dim5
> dim1 lit, dim2 lit, dim3 lit, dim4 lit, dim5 lit, ;,
> ;
>
> ...
>
> : 1array ( dim1 size -- ) bl word hstr dup >r <1array> r> dealloc ;
> : 2array ( dim1 dim2 size -- ) bl word hstr dup >r <2array> r> dealloc ;
> : 3array ( dim1 dim2 dim3 size -- ) bl word hstr dup >r <3array> r> dealloc ;
> : 4array ( dim1 dim2 dim3 dim4 size -- ) bl word hstr dup >r <4array> r> dealloc ;
> char & comment
> : 5array ( dim1 dim2 dim3 dim4 dim5 size -- ) bl word hstr dup >r <5array> r> dealloc ;
> : 6array ( dim1 dim2 dim3 dim4 dim5 dim6 size -- ) bl word hstr dup >r <6array> r> dealloc ;
> &
Those array definers were written for speed --- they may be big, but
they are much faster than any CREATE DOES> definer --- arrays are low-
level so they should be efficient.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-08 20:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c56ffba-9d93-48a1-9a43-aedda442cede@j9g2000prj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4506 |
On Jul 30, 5:22 pm, Julian Fondren <ayrn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> : jis-parse-value ( jis -- i*x n = Parse a value )
> >r
> r@ jis-skip-spaces
> s" true" r@ tis-cmatch-string IF \ Check for true value
> true jis.boolean
> ELSE
> s" false" r@ tis-cmatch-string IF \ Check for false value
> false jis.boolean
> ELSE
> s" null" r@ tis-cmatch-string IF \ Check for null value
> jis.null
> ELSE
> [char] " r@ tis-cmatch-char IF \ Check for string value
> r@ jis-parse-string IF
> jis.string
> ELSE
> jis.error
> THEN
> ELSE
> [char] { r@ tis-cmatch-char IF \ } Check for start of object
> jis.parse-first-pair r@ jis-push-state
> jis.start-object
> ELSE
> [char] [ r@ tis-cmatch-char IF \ ] Check for start of array
> jis.parse-first-value r@ jis-push-state
> jis.start-array
> ELSE
> r@ jis-parse-number \ Check for float, double or number
> THEN
> THEN
> THEN
> THEN
> THEN
> THEN
> rdrop
> ;
>
> Yeah, that's gross. FFL uses naming conventions instead of wordlists or
> smudging to manage its interface, and along with this decision has
> apparently come a reluctance to add lots of names.
Code like this (stair-step conditionals) is most likely a line-by-line
port of some old Pascal or C software. As I said, my impression of FFL
is that it was an academic exercise. Most likely, somebody found a
book on algorithms and ported the code directly into Forth. This would
also explain why FFL is so feature-poor. Those algorithms books
provide pretty bare-bones code because they are only teaching the
basic algorithm and not providing a library to be used. For example,
when I implemented my LLRB trees, Sedgewick's Java code didn't include
any facility for doing an in-order traversal of a sub-region in the
tree. Features like that would just clutter up the code and make
learning the algorithm more difficult, especially as such features are
common to all binary trees and not just LLRB trees --- the implementer
is expected to provide features like that on his own. Actually,
Sedgewick's Java code didn't even compile due to missing functions,
and it was missing various other important details as well --- it was
Java-like pseudo-code. When you implement code like this, you can't
just do a line-by-line port, but you have to be smart enough to figure
out how the algorithm works and what features would make sense for
that algorithm --- and you have to write an application or two using
the code to find out what features are useful at a practical level.
> 1. It (probably) works.
>
> 2. It's well-documented.
>
> 3. It exists; it's available; it's pretty clear.
>
> 4. It's in an SVN repository. If you really can't take JIS-PARSE-VALUE
> anymore, why not fix it, send the patch upstream, and continue to not
> roll your own JSON library?
My novice package does work, it is reasonably well documented, and it
is pretty clear. It is BSD license, so you can do what you want with
it --- if you write something useful, you can email that to me and I
will include it in the next release. If you don't want to write in my
style you don't have to, although I may rework the code if it is too
far away from my style.
As for me submitting to FFL, that is not going to happen. I don't want
my name associated with that garbage, and it is reasonable to assume
that they also consider my code to be garbage (I use :NAME rather than
CREATE DOES>, use ALLOCATION, and so forth). They would not accept my
code unless I agreed to restrict myself to their style, but in that
case they might as well just keep the code they've got as it is, and
write any new code themselves --- that way they can be sure that FFL
is written in their style.
There are abundant reasons to write code in my style. :NAME definers
generate significantly faster code than CREATE DOES> definers, and you
get multiple actions associated with each data type. The use of
ALLOCATION significantly simplifies code for data structures that may
contain nodes of various data-types. By comparison, there aren't any
reasons to write code in the FFL style (none that I can discern
anyway).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-31 10:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j1371i$u8k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #4494 |
On 30/07/2011 05:54, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > On Jul 28, 4:57 am, Gerry Jackson<ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> > wrote: >> On 07/07/2011 00:19, Hugh Aguilar wrote: >> >>> On Jul 6, 8:45 am, Gerry Jackson<ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>>> On 05/07/2011 04:57, Hugh Aguilar wrote: >>>>> I really doubt that anybody has ever used FFL for any application. >>>>> Just the ugly naming convention alone precludes this. Also, FFL >>>>> doesn't have any features. >> >> [...] >> >>>>> As I have >>>>> said, I have never heard of anybody writing any application program >>>>> using FFL, and I doubt that it could be done anyway --- so FFL has >>>>> never been tested in the crucible of application-writing. >> >>>> I see - if you haven't heard of something it has never happened. >> >>> You haven't given me any example of FFL being used in an application >>> program, so you don't know of any either! >> >> Look what I *accidentally* stumbled across while looking for HTML >> generators. >> >> http://drdobbs.com/web-development/212501814?pgno=2 >> >> You have now heard of an application using the FFL, so please don't make >> that claim again >> >> -- >> Gerry > > Well, that proves it! FFL is better than my novice package! lol > I've examined FFL, and I know that it isn't any good --- and no > application based on FFL is going to be any good either. Have you even > looked at FFL? Is this steaming heap of ugly Forth code really > something that you want to associate yourself with? I'm guessing that > you know as much about FFL as you know about that html-generating > application, which is nothing --- and that is more than you know about > my novice package. > > So far, all that you have accomplished is reading an article in Dr. > Dobb's (which isn't a good source of info on programming nowadays the > way that it was back in the 1980s, as there was a change in management > a few years back, which is why I don't bother reading it anymore). > Other than your ability to read articles in Dr. Dobb's, what do you > take pride in? > > This reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon in which Dilbert was describing > some algorithm, and the pointy-haired boss asked him: "Where did you > read about that?" So Dilbert gets mad and asks why it is assumed that > he must have read it about it somewhere, rather than that he thought > it up himself. He isn't the kind of programmer who reads articles in > glossy magazines and then tells everybody about them in an effort to > appear smart, he asserts. Wally then asks with amazement: "You can > read?" > > What I'm saying is: > get a life --- find something to do with your time other than trying > to convince me that my novice package sucks --- you put yourself in > the same category as Passaniti when you do that, which isn't a good > category to be in by anybody's standards (other than Elizabeth Rather; > she presumably is *very* impressed, for whatever that is worth to > you). I weary of responding to this nonsense. St Fagos. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-08 16:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9b3009b-efc0-40f3-9104-77dd88b1959f@df3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3594 |
On Jun 28, 3:29 am, Elizabeth D Rather <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > The great myth in technology is that "if you build a better mousetrap > the world will beat a path to your door." In other words, technical > superiority will win on its merits. That is not true. Technical > superiority will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, > and well-funded marketing campaign behind it. That claim is also a myth; and, it has been debunked on numerous occasions in various debates between various obscure superiority complex communities (Forth, Lisp, Lisp Machine, etc) and the more pragmatic thriving communities (C, Lua, Unix, etc). The myth is trotted out, along with various pejorative phrases such as "Worse Is Better", by those communities to make themselves feel better about themselves. Fact is many technologies die with vast marketing behind them and many thrive and gain popularity with no "substantial, dedicated, and well-funded marketing." Fact is that survival is highly informative and should be rationally and seriously considered when objectively evaluating a technology's overall fitness aka "better"ness. Dismissing survival and/or celebrating decay with the same tired old "marketing" excuse is ... lol ... well lame. But, I'm sure it makes you /feel/ better at least. KHD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-10 07:08 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <9_6dnUMsit64Jt_TnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #4649 |
On 8/8/11 1:00 PM, Keith H Duggar wrote: > On Jun 28, 3:29 am, Elizabeth D Rather<erat...@forth.com> wrote: >> The great myth in technology is that "if you build a better mousetrap >> the world will beat a path to your door." In other words, technical >> superiority will win on its merits. That is not true. Technical >> superiority will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, >> and well-funded marketing campaign behind it. > > That claim is also a myth; and, it has been debunked on numerous > occasions in various debates between various obscure superiority > complex communities (Forth, Lisp, Lisp Machine, etc) and the more > pragmatic thriving communities (C, Lua, Unix, etc). > > The myth is trotted out, along with various pejorative phrases such > as "Worse Is Better", by those communities to make themselves feel > better about themselves. > > Fact is many technologies die with vast marketing behind them and > many thrive and gain popularity with no "substantial, dedicated, and > well-funded marketing." Fact is that survival is highly informative > and should be rationally and seriously considered when objectively > evaluating a technology's overall fitness aka "better"ness. > > Dismissing survival and/or celebrating decay with the same tired > old "marketing" excuse is ... lol ... well lame. But, I'm sure > it makes you /feel/ better at least. To be sure, no amount of marketing can guarantee the success of something that nobody wants. The really successful products have at least a minimum level of technological soundness (not even Microsoft could sell Vista, smart cards, and a few other duds), but even a technically excellent product will fail if not enough people know about it and its outstanding qualities. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-10 18:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14bf2734-902d-4278-b943-c8b21ceffa6e@dc3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4693 |
On Aug 10, 1:08 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > On 8/8/11 1:00 PM, Keith H Duggar wrote: > > On Jun 28, 3:29 am, Elizabeth D Rather<erat...@forth.com>  wrote: > >> The great myth in technology is that "if you build a better mousetrap > >> the world will beat a path to your door."  In other words, technical > >> superiority will win on its merits.  That is not true.  Technical > >> superiority will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, > >> and well-funded marketing campaign behind it. > > > That claim is also a myth; and, it has been debunked on numerous > > occasions in various debates between various obscure superiority > > complex communities (Forth, Lisp, Lisp Machine, etc) and the more > > pragmatic thriving communities (C, Lua, Unix, etc). > > > The myth is trotted out, along with various pejorative phrases such > > as "Worse Is Better", by those communities to make themselves feel > > better about themselves. > > > Fact is many technologies die with vast marketing behind them and > > many thrive and gain popularity with no "substantial, dedicated, and > > well-funded marketing." Fact is that survival is highly informative > > and should be rationally and seriously considered when objectively > > evaluating a technology's overall fitness aka "better"ness. > > > Dismissing survival and/or celebrating decay with the same tired > > old "marketing" excuse is ... lol ... well lame. But, I'm sure > > it makes you /feel/ better at least. > > To be sure, no amount of marketing can guarantee the success of > something that nobody wants. The really successful products have at That was only one direction of my claim. I also claim it is not /necessary/ to have "substantial, dedicated, and well- funded marketing" in contradiction to your claim that it is. > least a minimum level of technological soundness (not even Microsoft > could sell Vista, smart cards, and a few other duds), but even a Vista ... hehe yeah that was a funny one. > technically excellent product will fail if not enough people know about > it and its outstanding qualities. Fortunately it does not /necessarily/ require "substantial, dedicated, and well-funded marketing" to garner enough users for success. There are numerous examples of this in software and technology products. To put it more simply. Just because a product that /you think/ is "better" fails, does not imply it failed because it lacked marketing. You may simply be /wrong/ and the product is not, in fact, "better" in totality. KHD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-11 03:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4fad0989-d8b7-45cb-b9d3-6e7cf8851ab6@a4g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4713 |
On Aug 11, 2:01 am, Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Aug 10, 1:08 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/8/11 1:00 PM, Keith H Duggar wrote: > > > On Jun 28, 3:29 am, Elizabeth D Rather<erat...@forth.com>  wrote: > > >> The great myth in technology is that "if you build a better mousetrap > > >> the world will beat a path to your door."  In other words, technical > > >> superiority will win on its merits.  That is not true.  Technical > > >> superiority will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, > > >> and well-funded marketing campaign behind it. > > > > That claim is also a myth; and, it has been debunked on numerous > > > occasions in various debates between various obscure superiority > > > complex communities (Forth, Lisp, Lisp Machine, etc) and the more > > > pragmatic thriving communities (C, Lua, Unix, etc). > > > > The myth is trotted out, along with various pejorative phrases such > > > as "Worse Is Better", by those communities to make themselves feel > > > better about themselves. > > > > Fact is many technologies die with vast marketing behind them and > > > many thrive and gain popularity with no "substantial, dedicated, and > > > well-funded marketing." Fact is that survival is highly informative > > > and should be rationally and seriously considered when objectively > > > evaluating a technology's overall fitness aka "better"ness. > > > > Dismissing survival and/or celebrating decay with the same tired > > > old "marketing" excuse is ... lol ... well lame. But, I'm sure > > > it makes you /feel/ better at least. > > > To be sure, no amount of marketing can guarantee the success of > > something that nobody wants. The really successful products have at > > That was only one direction of my claim. I also claim it is > not /necessary/ to have "substantial, dedicated, and well- > funded marketing" in contradiction to your claim that it is. > > > least a minimum level of technological soundness (not even Microsoft > > could sell Vista, smart cards, and a few other duds), but even a > > Vista ... hehe yeah that was a funny one. > > > technically excellent product will fail if not enough people know about > > it and its outstanding qualities. > > Fortunately it does not /necessarily/ require "substantial, > dedicated, and well-funded marketing" to garner enough users > for success. There are numerous examples of this in software > and technology products. > > To put it more simply. Just because a product that /you think/ > is "better" fails, does not imply it failed because it lacked > marketing. You may simply be /wrong/ and the product is not, > in fact, "better" in totality. > > KHD I'm afraid that in the real world you will find that nothing beats marketing. Except more marketing. I don't accept the "but Linux and other FOSS had no marketing!" argument. It did. A huge army of volunteer marketeers; unpaid, yes, but substantial in number and fanatically dedicated. And it definitely wasn't a better OS technology in the early days.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-11 07:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6402b7a0-fc0c-483e-90ac-1a928077df32@y16g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4728 |
On Aug 11, 6:05 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On Aug 11, 2:01 am, Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > On Aug 10, 1:08 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > > > On 8/8/11 1:00 PM, Keith H Duggar wrote: > > > > On Jun 28, 3:29 am, Elizabeth D Rather<erat...@forth.com>  wrote: > > > >> The great myth in technology is that "if you build a better mousetrap > > > >> the world will beat a path to your door."  In other words, technical > > > >> superiority will win on its merits.  That is not true.  Technical > > > >> superiority will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, > > > >> and well-funded marketing campaign behind it. > > > > > That claim is also a myth; and, it has been debunked on numerous > > > > occasions in various debates between various obscure superiority > > > > complex communities (Forth, Lisp, Lisp Machine, etc) and the more > > > > pragmatic thriving communities (C, Lua, Unix, etc). > > > > > The myth is trotted out, along with various pejorative phrases such > > > > as "Worse Is Better", by those communities to make themselves feel > > > > better about themselves. > > > > > Fact is many technologies die with vast marketing behind them and > > > > many thrive and gain popularity with no "substantial, dedicated, and > > > > well-funded marketing." Fact is that survival is highly informative > > > > and should be rationally and seriously considered when objectively > > > > evaluating a technology's overall fitness aka "better"ness. > > > > > Dismissing survival and/or celebrating decay with the same tired > > > > old "marketing" excuse is ... lol ... well lame. But, I'm sure > > > > it makes you /feel/ better at least. > > > > To be sure, no amount of marketing can guarantee the success of > > > something that nobody wants. The really successful products have at > > > That was only one direction of my claim. I also claim it is > > not /necessary/ to have "substantial, dedicated, and well- > > funded marketing" in contradiction to your claim that it is. > > > > least a minimum level of technological soundness (not even Microsoft > > > could sell Vista, smart cards, and a few other duds), but even a > > > Vista ... hehe yeah that was a funny one. > > > > technically excellent product will fail if not enough people know about > > > it and its outstanding qualities. > > > Fortunately it does not /necessarily/ require "substantial, > > dedicated, and well-funded marketing" to garner enough users > > for success. There are numerous examples of this in software > > and technology products. > > > To put it more simply. Just because a product that /you think/ > > is "better" fails, does not imply it failed because it lacked > > marketing. You may simply be /wrong/ and the product is not, > > in fact, "better" in totality. > > > KHD > > I'm afraid that in the real world you will find that > nothing beats marketing. Except more marketing. Asserting a falsehood multiple times does not make it more true. P[A & A] = P[A]. The facts contradict your hyperbolic claim. > I don't accept the "but Linux and other FOSS had no > marketing!" argument. Of course you don't accept facts. That is the first requirement of living in a delusion. > It did. A huge army of volunteer marketeers; unpaid, > yes, but substantial in number and fanatically dedicated. So even if your claim was stipulated, you agree that they were not "well-funded" which contradicts Rather's claim. Furthermore, Forth clearly demonstrates that having "fanatically dedicated" fans is not sufficient. Something about the product itself plays a role. The sooner obscure communities accept that, the sooner they can advance their product. > > > >> superiority will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, > > > >> and well-funded marketing campaign behind it. > And it definitely wasn't a better OS technology > in the early days. Just as a baby is not a "better" human in the early days? Users ie markets often /anticipate/. Survival is a crucial statistic regardless of how vehemently "smart know better than you" fanatics dismiss it. Of course, I know it makes you /feel/ better to ignore the cold facts. People always want to feel better about themselves and the choices they've made. KHD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-11 10:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ttGdnYop4dqwbd7TnZ2dnUVZ8hSdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #4732 |
Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > Of course, I know it makes you /feel/ better to ignore the cold > facts. People always want to feel better about themselves and > the choices they've made. So far, all we've had is strenuous assertions that one opinion is true and denials that the other opinion can have any merit. quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur: what is asserted without reason may be denied without reason. Surely the middle ground in this disagreement makes sense. Maybe a good marketing campaign isn't sufficient, but it does help. No? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-11 08:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20f0372c-20fd-4e5d-aea9-7df9386bac83@fv14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4736 |
On Aug 11, 11:07 am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > Of course, I know it makes you /feel/ better to ignore the cold > > facts. People always want to feel better about themselves and > > the choices they've made. > > So far, all we've had is strenuous assertions that one opinion is true > and denials that the other opinion can have any merit. quod gratis > asseritur, gratis negatur: what is asserted without reason may be > denied without reason. > > Surely the middle ground in this disagreement makes sense. Maybe a > good marketing campaign isn't sufficient, but it does help. No? Yes a marketing campaign helps; it is not necessary. That is, I am disputing the /only if/ part of EDR's claim that "superiority will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, and well-funded marketing campaign behind it." Note that claim says not just /good/ marketing but /great/ marketing is /required/. KHD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-11 08:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5666bbda-042e-4264-ac7c-639d3682d4c6@p20g2000yqp.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4737 |
On Aug 11, 4:32 pm, Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Aug 11, 11:07 am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> > wrote: > > > Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > Of course, I know it makes you /feel/ better to ignore the cold > > > facts. People always want to feel better about themselves and > > > the choices they've made. > > > So far, all we've had is strenuous assertions that one opinion is true > > and denials that the other opinion can have any merit. quod gratis > > asseritur, gratis negatur: what is asserted without reason may be > > denied without reason. > > > Surely the middle ground in this disagreement makes sense. Maybe a > > good marketing campaign isn't sufficient, but it does help. No? > > Yes a marketing campaign helps; it is not necessary. That is, I > am disputing the /only if/ part of EDR's claim that "superiority > will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, and > well-funded marketing campaign behind it." Note that claim says > not just /good/ marketing but /great/ marketing is /required/. > > KHD Since you quoted Elizabeth, you should be able to see that she didn't say what you think she said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-11 18:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7324f08c-943c-4106-b0a3-2f5fc377ec64@f41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4738 |
On Aug 11, 11:37 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On Aug 11, 4:32 pm, Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > On Aug 11, 11:07 am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > > Of course, I know it makes you /feel/ better to ignore the cold > > > > facts. People always want to feel better about themselves and > > > > the choices they've made. > > > > So far, all we've had is strenuous assertions that one opinion is true > > > and denials that the other opinion can have any merit.  quod gratis > > > asseritur, gratis negatur: what is asserted without reason may be > > > denied without reason. > > > > Surely the middle ground in this disagreement makes sense.  Maybe a > > > good marketing campaign isn't sufficient, but it does help.  No? > > > Yes a marketing campaign helps; it is not necessary. That is, I > > am disputing the /only if/ part of EDR's claim that "superiority > > will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, and > > well-funded marketing campaign behind it." Note that claim says > > not just /good/ marketing but /great/ marketing is /required/. > > Since you quoted Elizabeth, you should be able to see that she didn't > say what you think she said. *sigh* ... here is the exact quote: Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > The great myth in technology is that "if you build a better mousetrap > the world will beat a path to your door." In other words, technical > superiority will win on its merits. That is not true. Technical > superiority will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, > and well-funded marketing campaign behind it. She wrote /exactly/ what I claim she claimed. To repeat, EDR claimed that "technical superiority will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, and well-funded marketing campaign behind it." I dispute the "only if". KHD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-12 01:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d99ca09c-bfa8-43ea-8d83-5af5c83f3bb9@v7g2000vbk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4752 |
On Aug 12, 2:25 am, Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Aug 11, 11:37 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 11, 4:32 pm, Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > On Aug 11, 11:07 am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> > > > wrote: > > > > > Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > > > Of course, I know it makes you /feel/ better to ignore the cold > > > > > facts. People always want to feel better about themselves and > > > > > the choices they've made. > > > > > So far, all we've had is strenuous assertions that one opinion is true > > > > and denials that the other opinion can have any merit.  quod gratis > > > > asseritur, gratis negatur: what is asserted without reason may be > > > > denied without reason. > > > > > Surely the middle ground in this disagreement makes sense.  Maybe a > > > > good marketing campaign isn't sufficient, but it does help.  No? > > > > Yes a marketing campaign helps; it is not necessary. That is, I > > > am disputing the /only if/ part of EDR's claim that "superiority > > > will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, and > > > well-funded marketing campaign behind it." Note that claim says > > > not just /good/ marketing but /great/ marketing is /required/. > > > Since you quoted Elizabeth, you should be able to see that she didn't > > say what you think she said. > > *sigh* ... here is the exact quote: > > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > > The great myth in technology is that "if you build a better mousetrap > > the world will beat a path to your door." In other words, technical > > superiority will win on its merits. That is not true. Technical > > superiority will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, > > and well-funded marketing campaign behind it. > > She wrote /exactly/ what I claim she claimed. > > To repeat, EDR claimed that "technical superiority will win if and > only if there is a substantial, dedicated, and well-funded marketing > campaign behind it." I dispute the "only if". > > KHD "Note that claim says not just /good/ marketing but /great/ marketing is /required/" sez you. I can't find Elizabeth having said that. Please point it out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-12 07:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64202594-704f-4118-83c2-2c5ea78f6e75@a16g2000yqo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4767 |
On Aug 12, 4:37 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On Aug 12, 2:25 am, Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > To repeat, EDR claimed that "technical superiority will win if and > > only if there is a substantial, dedicated, and well-funded marketing > > campaign behind it." I dispute the "only if". > > "Note that claim says not just /good/ marketing but /great/ marketing > is /required/" sez you. I can't find Elizabeth having said that. > Please point it out. It was a simple shortened alternative to "substantial, dedicated, and well-funded" which I had quoted several times ... talk about splitting hairs ... Look, if you personally want to continue making yourself /feel/ better by attributing the failures of your particular favorite products to "poor marketing", please do so. My informal points here were directed to those who have the capacity to rationally evaluate their "superior" product's market acceptance. KHD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-12 08:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56cc7bca-7c22-4d24-83d9-40ab8bf6f443@s7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4777 |
On Aug 12, 3:15 pm, Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Aug 12, 4:37 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 12, 2:25 am, Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > To repeat, EDR claimed that "technical superiority will win if and > > > only if there is a substantial, dedicated, and well-funded marketing > > > campaign behind it." I dispute the "only if". > > > "Note that claim says not just /good/ marketing but /great/ marketing > > is /required/" sez you. I can't find Elizabeth having said that. > > Please point it out. > > It was a simple shortened alternative to "substantial, dedicated, > and well-funded" which I had quoted several times ... talk about > splitting hairs ... IOW it was an exaggerated longer alternative. Thanks for clarifying. > > Look, if you personally want to continue making yourself /feel/ > better by attributing the failures of your particular favorite > products to "poor marketing", please do so. Where have I done that? Or are you just making stuff up because it makes /you/ feel better? > My informal points > here were directed to those who have the capacity to rationally > evaluate their "superior" product's market acceptance. > > KHD This you wrote to irritate me. It's very juvenile; do you think it advances your argument any? The point at hand appears to be you needing to find someone to blame for a lack of success. Others are trying to engage you rationally, and suggesting that marketing plays a large part, if not the largest part, in the commercial success of a technology. My position; "For every dollar spent programming, a dollar spent marketing makes a bigger return." Discuss.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-11 08:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4e7187c8-7ceb-4837-9fef-a4dadb1883bc@gz10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4732 |
On Aug 11, 3:37 pm, Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Aug 11, 6:05 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 11, 2:01 am, Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > On Aug 10, 1:08 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > > > > On 8/8/11 1:00 PM, Keith H Duggar wrote: > > > > > On Jun 28, 3:29 am, Elizabeth D Rather<erat...@forth.com>  wrote: > > > > >> The great myth in technology is that "if you build a better mousetrap > > > > >> the world will beat a path to your door."  In other words, technical > > > > >> superiority will win on its merits.  That is not true.  Technical > > > > >> superiority will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, > > > > >> and well-funded marketing campaign behind it. > > > > > > That claim is also a myth; and, it has been debunked on numerous > > > > > occasions in various debates between various obscure superiority > > > > > complex communities (Forth, Lisp, Lisp Machine, etc) and the more > > > > > pragmatic thriving communities (C, Lua, Unix, etc). > > > > > > The myth is trotted out, along with various pejorative phrases such > > > > > as "Worse Is Better", by those communities to make themselves feel > > > > > better about themselves. > > > > > > Fact is many technologies die with vast marketing behind them and > > > > > many thrive and gain popularity with no "substantial, dedicated, and > > > > > well-funded marketing." Fact is that survival is highly informative > > > > > and should be rationally and seriously considered when objectively > > > > > evaluating a technology's overall fitness aka "better"ness. > > > > > > Dismissing survival and/or celebrating decay with the same tired > > > > > old "marketing" excuse is ... lol ... well lame. But, I'm sure > > > > > it makes you /feel/ better at least. > > > > > To be sure, no amount of marketing can guarantee the success of > > > > something that nobody wants. The really successful products have at > > > > That was only one direction of my claim. I also claim it is > > > not /necessary/ to have "substantial, dedicated, and well- > > > funded marketing" in contradiction to your claim that it is. > > > > > least a minimum level of technological soundness (not even Microsoft > > > > could sell Vista, smart cards, and a few other duds), but even a > > > > Vista ... hehe yeah that was a funny one. > > > > > technically excellent product will fail if not enough people know about > > > > it and its outstanding qualities. > > > > Fortunately it does not /necessarily/ require "substantial, > > > dedicated, and well-funded marketing" to garner enough users > > > for success. There are numerous examples of this in software > > > and technology products. > > > > To put it more simply. Just because a product that /you think/ > > > is "better" fails, does not imply it failed because it lacked > > > marketing. You may simply be /wrong/ and the product is not, > > > in fact, "better" in totality. > > > > KHD > > > I'm afraid that in the real world you will find that > > nothing beats marketing. Except more marketing. > > Asserting a falsehood multiple times does not make it > more true. P[A & A] = P[A]. The facts contradict your > hyperbolic claim. Examples please. > > > I don't accept the "but Linux and other FOSS had no > > marketing!" argument. > > Of course you don't accept facts. That is the first > requirement of living in a delusion. Please substantiate the facts with evidence. > > > It did. A huge army of volunteer marketeers; unpaid, > > yes, but substantial in number and fanatically dedicated. > > So even if your claim was stipulated, you agree that > they were not "well-funded" which contradicts Rather's > claim. Furthermore, Forth clearly demonstrates that > having "fanatically dedicated" fans is not sufficient. > Something about the product itself plays a role. The > sooner obscure communities accept that, the sooner > they can advance their product. Hair splitting. Since labour (paid or otherwise)=money, and Linux had lots of unpaid labour, where's the difference? And why would this "obscure community" of Forthers feel the need to "advance their product"? A motive is required. What is it? So is a product. What is it? > > > > > >> superiority will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, > > > > >> and well-funded marketing campaign behind it. > > And it definitely wasn't a better OS technology > > in the early days. > > Just as a baby is not a "better" human in the early days? Anthropomorphising this argument is silly. Software has no predetermined growth pattern, and it may or may not have utility (in the economic sense). Babies don't qualify. > Users ie markets often /anticipate/. Survival is a crucial > statistic regardless of how vehemently "smart know better > than you" fanatics dismiss it. Markets buy stuff. Appealing to "anticipatory users" (aka tyre kickers in my business) doesn't get the bills paid. I'm not dismissing your argument out of hand, but you really need to provide evidence that you have a case in point, and I haven't seen any. > > Of course, I know it makes you /feel/ better to ignore the cold > facts. People always want to feel better about themselves and > the choices they've made. > > KHD Suit yourself. I note your "facts" appear to be missing. I've been through this process several times during my 35 years in the software industry, and the better product doesn't necessarily win. Better marketing does. I can provide you with proof points should you need them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-11 18:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <935d3385-433d-4561-94c5-24aaa8df9f13@l7g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4739 |
On Aug 11, 11:13 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On Aug 11, 3:37 pm, Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > On Aug 11, 6:05 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 11, 2:01 am, Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > > On Aug 10, 1:08¬†pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > > > > > On 8/8/11 1:00 PM, Keith H Duggar wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 28, 3:29 am, Elizabeth D Rather<erat...@forth.com> ¬†wrote: > > > > > >> The great myth in technology is that "if you build a better mousetrap > > > > > >> the world will beat a path to your door." ¬†In other words, technical > > > > > >> superiority will win on its merits. ¬†That is not true. ¬†Technical > > > > > >> superiority will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, > > > > > >> and well-funded marketing campaign behind it. > > > > > > > That claim is also a myth; and, it has been debunked on numerous > > > > > > occasions in various debates between various obscure superiority > > > > > > complex communities (Forth, Lisp, Lisp Machine, etc) and the more > > > > > > pragmatic thriving communities (C, Lua, Unix, etc). > > > > > > > The myth is trotted out, along with various pejorative phrases such > > > > > > as "Worse Is Better", by those communities to make themselves feel > > > > > > better about themselves. > > > > > > > Fact is many technologies die with vast marketing behind them and > > > > > > many thrive and gain popularity with no "substantial, dedicated, and > > > > > > well-funded marketing." Fact is that survival is highly informative > > > > > > and should be rationally and seriously considered when objectively > > > > > > evaluating a technology's overall fitness aka "better"ness. > > > > > > > Dismissing survival and/or celebrating decay with the same tired > > > > > > old "marketing" excuse is ... lol ... well lame. But, I'm sure > > > > > > it makes you /feel/ better at least. > > > > > > To be sure, no amount of marketing can guarantee the success of > > > > > something that nobody wants. The really successful products have at > > > > > That was only one direction of my claim. I also claim it is > > > > not /necessary/ to have "substantial, dedicated, and well- > > > > funded marketing" in contradiction to your claim that it is. > > > > > > least a minimum level of technological soundness (not even Microsoft > > > > > could sell Vista, smart cards, and a few other duds), but even a > > > > > Vista ... hehe yeah that was a funny one. > > > > > > technically excellent product will fail if not enough people know about > > > > > it and its outstanding qualities. > > > > > Fortunately it does not /necessarily/ require "substantial, > > > > dedicated, and well-funded marketing" to garner enough users > > > > for success. There are numerous examples of this in software > > > > and technology products. > > > > > To put it more simply. Just because a product that /you think/ > > > > is "better" fails, does not imply it failed because it lacked > > > > marketing. You may simply be /wrong/ and the product is not, > > > > in fact, "better" in totality. > > > > > KHD > > > > I'm afraid that in the real world you will find that > > > nothing beats marketing. Except more marketing. > > > Asserting a falsehood multiple times does not make it > > more true. P[A & A] = P[A]. The facts contradict your > > hyperbolic claim. > > Examples please. It's readily apparent form your comments regarding Linux that there are No True Scotsman in your comfortable delusion. > > > I don't accept the "but Linux and other FOSS had no > > > marketing!" argument. > > > Of course you don't accept facts. That is the first > > requirement of living in a delusion. > > Please substantiate the facts with evidence. There are No True Scotsman for you. You will imagine phantasy labor and "marketing" at every corner despite any evidence to the contrary. > > > It did. A huge army of volunteer marketeers; unpaid, > > > yes, but substantial in number and fanatically dedicated. > > > So even if your claim was stipulated, you agree that > > they were not "well-funded" which contradicts Rather's > > claim. Furthermore, Forth clearly demonstrates that > > having "fanatically dedicated" fans is not sufficient. > > Something about the product itself plays a role. The > > sooner obscure communities accept that, the sooner > > they can advance their product. > > Hair splitting. Since labour (paid or otherwise)=money, and > Linux had lots of unpaid labour, where's the difference? There difference appears to be that there are No True Scotsman. > And why would this "obscure community" of Forthers feel the need to > "advance their product"? A motive is required. What is it? So is a > product. What is it? What does motive have to do with capability? What does current Forth motivation have to do with excusing past failure? Nothing ... > > > > > >> superiority will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, > > > > > >> and well-funded marketing campaign behind it. > > > And it definitely wasn't a better OS technology > > > in the early days. > > > Just as a baby is not a "better" human in the early days? > > Anthropomorphising this argument is silly. Software has no > predetermined growth pattern, and it may or may not have utility > (in the economic sense). Babies don't qualify. Babies do not have predetermined paths. That much should be obvious to anyone. Some babies ultimately are productive to society and some are anti-productive. What makes them analogous to a new product is the anticipation, the prediction of success by supporters. > > Users ie markets often /anticipate/. Survival is a crucial > > statistic regardless of how vehemently "smart know better > > than you" fanatics dismiss it. > > Markets buy stuff. Appealing to "anticipatory users" (aka tyre kickers > in my business) doesn't get the bills paid. I'm not dismissing your > argument out of hand, but you really need to provide evidence that you > have a case in point, and I haven't seen any. There are No True Scotsman for you. > > Of course, I know it makes you /feel/ better to ignore the cold > > facts. People always want to feel better about themselves and > > the choices they've made. > > Suit yourself. I note your "facts" appear to be missing. There are No True Scotsman for you. Trying to help you see them would be nothing but a dreary and futile exercise. > I've been through this process several times during my 35 years in the > software industry, and the better product doesn't necessarily win. > Better marketing does. I can provide you with proof points should you > need them. I did not claim the better product wins. Nor did I claim that marketing cannot make a "bad" product commercially successful. What I claimed is that "a substantial, dedicated, and well-funded marketing" is not /necessary/ for the success of a good product. To repeat, EDR made the following /universal/ claim "technical superiority will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, and well-funded marketing campaign behind it." I dispute the "only if". It is nothing more than a lazy, tired, lame, excuse for failure. KHD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web